I feel like this could interfere with board usage when it comes to a casual conversation between a user and an admin. Also, would moderators and administrators be required to drop everything and read the PM? And what happens when a user has just typed in a post and goes to submit it but is required to read an admin PM? I assume the post would be lost.

IMO this wuold be best as an extension.

I do custom MODs. PM for a quote!View My: MODs | PortfolioPlease do NOT contact for support via PM or email.
Remember, the enemy's gate is down.

imkingdavid wrote:I feel like this could interfere with board usage when it comes to a casual conversation between a user and an admin. Also, would moderators and administrators be required to drop everything and read the PM? And what happens when a user has just typed in a post and goes to submit it but is required to read an admin PM? I assume the post would be lost.

IMO this wuold be best as an extension.

I see what you mean. But I need a way to make sure that a user take action when a moderator contact him/her regards something, and not just ignore the PM

I don't think you can force this in any way. Every popup, notification, alarm bell etc. can be muted by simply clicking something open and than go back to the previous page. The best thing you might do is to always notify by email even when the user has disabled this. (however, this should be an extension for those who want it, not a core function).

Above message may contain errors in grammar, spelling or wrongly chosen words. This is because I'm not a native speaker. My apologies in advance.

There's something equivalent in IP.B. Not about PM's but about warnings.
We could take a look about how they do it and maybe do the same about warnings in phpBB.
We could also take care about what the user is submitting while the condition persists.
For example, the user tries to submit the message, but he has a warning pendent, he would see the error message and a link in the error message that would open a new tab/window with the warning that the user received. After he acknowledges it, that "block" is lifted and the user may resubmit.

Anyway, doing this block for PM's is -1, from me and for warnings (as an option when creating the warn itself) is +1 from me.

brunoais wrote:There's something equivalent in IP.B. Not about PM's but about warnings.
We could take a look about how they do it and maybe do the same about warnings in phpBB.
We could also take care about what the user is submitting while the condition persists.
For example, the user tries to submit the message, but he has a warning pendent, he would see the error message and a link in the error message that would open a new tab/window with the warning that the user received. After he acknowledges it, that "block" is lifted and the user may resubmit.

Anyway, doing this block for PM's is -1, from me and for warnings (as an option when creating the warn itself) is +1 from me.

Yes, addressing things with Warnings makes more sense. If it's not something that would normally get a warning, maybe we need a new "event" type (Actions?) for required things.